In reflection on her term as the presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church posted at YouTube, Katharine Schori said that the reign of God would look like a society where there is justice in the sense that nobody lives in want and nobody has too much.

Given that the apostate wing of Anglicanism isn't exactly known for its apocalyptic millennialism or even a literalist interpretation where these eschatological expectations can only be fulfilled at the Second Advent of Christ's return, such a statement ought to be a cause for concern.

There is little reason to object to the aspiration of everybody being free from want provided they lift a finger of their own to some degree in pursuit of this ideal.

However, without Christ Himself on scene to render such a verdict, who is to say what constitutes “too much”?

Might “too much” be the ostentatious vestments and silly hats many belonging to this retired bishop's particular denomination like to prance about in?

If these functionaries really cared about the equitable distribution of recourses, they could still solemnly fulfill the requirements of their ritual and liturgy in little more than a collared clergy shirt running not more than $50 online.

More importantly, how are those that “don't have enough” necessarily negatively impacted by my having “too much”?

What if one has more simply because one has been a better steward of what one has been blessed?

Sunday, January 24, 2016

Saturday, January 23, 2016

Rather than embrace the salvation there for the taking provided by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, a growing percentage would rather put their trust in alleged visitors from outer space planning to usher humanity into a New Age utopia under the guise of a “benevolent dictatorship”.

A good example of this increasingly-pervasive UFO mythology appeared in an edition of the Prince George’s Journal when one of the columnists exhibited a number of the typical intellectual and spiritual fallacies surrounding this controversial issue. For starters, the columnist assumes the federal government is concealing alien corpses from another planet or knowledge pertaining thereof under lock and key in the deserts of the Southwest.

Our government might be guilty of many things (including psychic warfare according to various reports), but harboring extraterrestrial biological remains is probably not one of them. Naturally, people are going to see strange things in the skies above Roswell and Area 51; it is, after all, where experimental aircraft are tested, many of which in all likelihood do not conform to popular aeronautical configurations.

The philosophical reasoning of the columnist under consideration is even more fuddled than her historical assumptions. The columnist complains about the popular conception that the universe’s non-human inhabitants are diabolical and bent on interstellar domination. But she herself then makes the equally egregious error in assuming any extraterrestrial intelligence must be in a moral sense inherently superior to any human being.

Many of the great Western thinkers of both the classical and Christian traditions contend human beings possess the same nature the world over, operating along an established behavioral continuum. Isn’t it safe to assume that sentient life across the universe would adhere to a similar standard?

Popular science fiction seems to bear this out as television programs in this genre exhibit a wide array of alien psychologies often in the span of a single episode.

On Star Trek alone, Vulcans value the intellect while Klingons revel in bloodshed; the Borg epitomize Communism as they have no rulers yet all are slaves having their individuality sublimated to the prerogatives of the collective. The Bajorans of Deep Space Nine are deeply religious, the shows producers using them to comment on the role of religious faith in light of the Space Age. On Babylon 5, the Vorlons claim to stand for universal order while pursuing their own nefarious agenda. So much for extraterrestrials being superior.

It seems from this small sampling that such creatures would be as complex and varied as the nations and peoples now inhabiting our own world. Star Trek creator Gene Rodenberry through his work seemed to argue humans would actually be the ones providing a sense of balance to galactic affairs with the so-called aliens actually the ones for the most part exhibiting behavioral and philosophical extremes.

It seems the incessant praise of all things alien might just be another attack on the wonders man has accomplished in his few short millennia of existence. The liberals who bash human ignorance in light of the knowledge an advanced extraterrestrial civilization would have to offer turn around and praise the backwards peoples of the Earth such as jungle tribesman and desert nomads.

Applying this heuristic of the “noble savage” (to borrow Rousseau’s term), wouldn’t us simple Earthfolk bring enlightenment to the interplanetary voyagers? Perhaps we simpletons would even persuade them to abandon their vile space-faring technology (which no doubt pollutes the solar winds) for a way of life more in tune with the principles of cosmic sustainability confined to a single planet.

Rochester, New York
canceled New Year fireworks for fear of terrorism. How many other
holiday celebrations will be canceled in the years ahead over
similarly fabricated threats? The same bureaucrats pulling this stunt
probably support open borders and refuge relocation.

Religious hucksters
Kenneth Copeland and Jesse Duplantis insist that they retain access
to their private jetliners in order to protect these ministers from
the demonic entities that apparently prefer to fly in coach. So what
about the remainder of we mere pewfillers? If this really was the
case, instead of hogging this opulent form of travel for themselves,
wouldn't true men of God instead open some kind of charter flight
service for traveling Christians?

Is there a reason that
we should be outraged over the White House spying on members of
Congress and visiting foreign dignitaries when media propagandists
and administration functionaries constantly harp that those not
celebrating the diminution of individual privacy are mentally
deficient to the point of political subversion?

It is claimed in an
anti-bullying public service announcement featuring a number of ABC
celebrities that there is not one correct way to be. As such,
kindness is urged. But isn't that an assertion that there is indeed
a correct way to be?

It
is being suggested that additional taxation be levied to battle the
ISIS threat. If additional revenue is required, that is an admission
that the taxes that have been collected are not being utilized
effectively. So why shouldn't we conclude that a so-called “ISIS
tax” won't be similarly squandered?

Apparently
a militia group has occupied an Oregon wildlife refuge. And that is
worse than the antics of the Occupy movement or Black Lives Matter
why?

Regarding
those that attended the premiere of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”
in costumed regalia, Neil Cavuto of Fox News remarked such was a
symptom of the end of civilization as we know it. Maybe so. But was
he as blunt in his condemnation of gay matrimony? Isn't the usual
modus operandi of the economic wing of Fox News to determine the
rightness or wrongness of a thing by calculating the wad of money it
has accrued? For example, the network's approval of pee wee football
coaches verbally degrading the tykes playing under them? So why are
Star Wars fans more condemnable than out of control sports
enthusiasts? Would Cavuto ridicule the film to the same extent if
Star Wars was still owned by his corporate overlords at Fox rather
than Disney?

In
terms of the Clinton Foundation, Hillary insisted in 2009 that she or
her husband accrue no financial interest in the charity. As if
couple live in such a state of destitution that the hookers Bill must
settle for are the toothless meth addicts with the sunken in faces.

In
a commercial for a wifi video doorbell, a man rings the device. A
woman depicted at a cafe replies she's busy bathing the children at
the moment. The conspicuously pious will fly into conniptions how
this woman is guilty of bearing false witness. But there is a more
important concern regarding her response. Wouldn't her response
indicate to a potential assailant or predator that she is home alone
unprotected with defenseless urchins? Where is there any requirement
that you are obligated to open a door or to provide a reason as to
why you are not to someone that you do not know?

Did
police drag their feet in bringing Bill Cosby to justice because he
is a Freemason?

Unlike
Black Lives Matter, the “Bundy Militia” occupying a federal
wildlife refuge in Oregon have yet to loot haircare products,
smartphones or destroyed any property. Will Southern Baptist
functionaries Russell Moore plead now for the need to understand the
plight of rural Caucasians and why urbanites need to beseech the
forgiveness from the Almighty for the wrong perpetrated against that
particular demographic?

Under
the Obama regime gun control executive directives, certain
individuals on Social Security could potentially be denied their
Second Amendment rights. Is that so they won't be put up much
resistance when the Healthcare Reform Act death panels come for them?

In
the account of Gideon elaborated in Judges 6, Gideon's army was
divided along the lines of those that knelt over to drink and those
that cupped the water in their hands. Isn't it a bit much to insist
that the hand drinkers were somehow superior to the slurpers? There
does not seem to be anything to indicate in the Scriptures that the
slurping of water was somehow forbidden in the Mosaic code. The
response for generations throughout the history of homiletics has
been that those drinking with their hands possessed what today is
termed situational awareness. Maybe so. But at each step of the
winnowing process, wasn't God attempting to prevent the nation of
Israel from finding a basis upon which they could congratulate
themselves for victory against the Midianites? God simply needed a
criteria by which to reduce the assembled throng down to His required
number. The fuss that has been made over the hand drinkers from the
pulpit over the years is akin to suggesting that the twelve impaneled
on a jury are better from a moral standpoint than the remainder of
the summoned pool.

At
the CNN gun control forum, President Obama counseled that at best
firearms only protect those that they are intended to protect only in
a few instances. More often, these implements end up injuring those
that they are intended to protect. If so, for the President's sake,
shouldn't the Secret Service be disarmed?

The
network ABC Family is changing its name to “Freeform”. The
executives must really want to broadcast some debauched and bawdy
programming with out attracting the sarcastic scrutiny that would
likely result from the name “Family” still being attached.

Will
the ecclesiastical potentates in the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops opposing America's “cowboy culture” and applauding
President Obama's dictatorial gun control proposals call upon the
Vatican to set a planetary example by disbanding the Pope's heavily
armed Swiss guards?

Ted
Cruz assured that law is not enforced in America with jackboots. The
Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver, and the extended family of Elion
Gonzalez might suggest otherwise.

Rand
Paul refused to accept his demotion to the second tier debate on Fox
Business Network. By this point in the game, do that many even care?

Montgomery
County, Maryland Executive Ike Legget assured that he would not
cooperate in the deportation of illegal residents. Shouldn't the
same liberals that applauded the imprisonment of Kentucky court clerk
Kim Davis for failing to uphold the implementation of assorted
judicial rulings regarding gay marriage now be calling for the
incarceration of this rogue municipal functionary as well?

In
the State of the Union, President Obama insisted that Food Stamp
recipients did not cause the financial crisis. Maybe not. However,
it is not a sign of cultural or economic health when ghetto sows in
there 20's get $2000 per month in Social Security disability and
nearly another $1000 to go towards their subsidized housing which
they still refuse to pay for because they don't like it that the
landlord did not get around to fixing the latch on the mailbox in a
timely manner.

In
the State of the Union, President Obama admonished that democracy
“doesn't work if we think people who disagree with us are all
motivated by malice,...are unpatriotic, or trying to weaken America.”
How else do you describe those that rampage in the streets
destroying property over a trial verdict with which they disagree.
Was not President Obama the one that told his supporters to get into
the faces of those with which they disagree and to make the holiday's
miserable of counterrevolutionary family members that dare to
vocalize sentiments not in compliance with prevailing
multiculturalist dogmas? Wasn't President Obama that suggested that
leftwing Hispanics should punish their political enemies that failed
to embrace a progressivist agenda? In the State of the Union,
President Obama went on to say, “We need every American to stay
active in our public life and not just during election time.” Does
this include those that he accused of clinging bitterly to both their
God and their guns?

Representative
Jim Jordan insisted that he was not trying to make some kind of
statement by inviting Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis to the State of
the Union. And what if he was? How could it be any worse than
jihadist sympathizer Nezar Hamze being invited to Representative
Alcee Hastings to attend this event? Even if you disagree with
Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, to remain a
consistent liberal, don't you have to admit such a transgression
pales in comparison to teaching small weapons usage at a mosque where
the clergy were accused of funneling funds to the Pakistani Taliban?

Will
those condemning Ted Cruz's remarks regarding “New York values”
get as jacked out of shape regarding Gov. Cumo insisting there is no
place for you in New York unless you are in spirit a baby killer and
moral deviant. Isn't that more in keeping with the totalitarian
nature of Anti-Semiticism and its desire to liquidate whole scale
populations than to make observations regarding those with
disproportionate sway over media and finance.

In
light of the Black thespians flying into histrionics over those
bestowing Hollywood accolades being predominately White, how is that
much different than those pitching a fit suggesting the the media is
controlled by Jews?

In
his tirade against Star Wars, Pastor Jason Cooley was introduced by
the Darth Vader theme. If Star Wars is so wicked, isn't that
analogous to playing the stripper theme or Marvin Gaye's “Let's Get
It On” when discussing modesty or fornication? If Christians are
to remain separate from these entertainments as Pastor Cooley
suggests, how are they expected to understand the references Pastor
Cooley makes such as the theme “The Jeffersons” or even the “You
will be assimilated” of the Borg from Star Trek?

In
the inaugural edition of his podcast “Signposts”, Russell Moore
bashed those invoking Scripture as evidence of their apocalyptic
catastrophism. Defective in certain regards as such a hermeneutic
might be, isn't it still more a more accurate interpretation than
Moore's own variety of progressivist social gospelism?

An
MSNBC headline reporting arguments before the Supreme Court regarding
compulsory union fees states, “Religious Freedom Used To Weaponize
The First Amendment”. But how is that different than when the
First Amendment is invoked to justify rampaging mobs looting
businesses following an unpopular jury verdict or to financially ruin
businesses that refuse to applaud the state-sanctioned solemnization
of moral licentiousness?

However, don't expect
establishmentarian Republicans to do anything about it.

It seems the party's foremost
luminaries and rising stars are more concerned about maintaining the
go along to get along mentality that has brought the nation to the
precipice of collapse.

This was evident in South Carolina
Governor Nikki Haley's response to the 2016 State of the Union
Address.

The party has grown so weak and tepid
that it was suggested on the WMAL morning show in Washington that
some debated the propriety of even referring to this short oration as
“Republican” for fear of appearing too partisan.

In her remarks, Haley insisted that,
“Some people think that you have to be the loudest voice in the
room to make a difference. That is just not true. Often, the best
thing we do is turn down the volume. When the sound is quieter, you
can actually hear what someone else is saying. And that can make a
world of difference.”

The Scripture does counsel that a soft
answer can turn away wrath and can make a world of difference in
terms of personal relationships.

But what is being suggested by Governor
Haley is that, while subversives threaten violence and destroy
private property in pursuit of assorted radical agendas, once again
the so-called “Silent Majority” really ought to remain quiet and
continue to be walked all over.

As an example of the path she suggests
to utopia, Governor Haley uplifted the response to the terrorist
madman that murdered those assembled for prayer at the Charleston
church prayer group.

The end result of that tragedy that
Governor Haley is the most proud of is not necessarily the aversion
of widespread looting but rather the removal of the Confederate
Battle Flag from South Carolina state property.

But was this move not the epitome of
the loudest voices being triumphant in terms of determining the
course of public policy?

For it is doubtful that workaday South
Carolinians had the final say in this decision.

Rather, as with many of the others made
across the various levels of government and throughout influential
social institutions, this one was no doubt the result of activist
leeches not even living in the particular jurisdiction that threaten
to burn entire cities to the ground if you so much as look askance in
their direction working in tandem with nefarious elites attempting to
implement a globalist New World Order.

In her remarks, Governor Haley assured,
“No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love
our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.”

Too bad this sentiment no longer seems
to apply to you anymore unless your progenitors just got off of the
boat or have wads of cash large enough to pay your way into an
assortment of secret societies.

Saturday, January 16, 2016

Not well acquainted with the Western
intellectual heritage, some Christians readily dismiss all
philosophical endeavor because of the results arrived at by many
ungodly thinkers seeking to elevate their own finite speculations
above God's revelation. However, it must be remembered that all
truth is God's truth. Made in the image of God, man can mirror to a
small degree a portion of his Creator's rationality if he is seeking
after that truth in an honest fashion.

It has been remarked that Western
civilization owes its foundation to the two ancient cities of
Jerusalem (representing Judeo-Christian theism) and Athens
(representing Greek philosophical inquiry). And while the primacy
of the Judeo-Christian contributions must not be forgotten as it
represents God's direct relationship with man, the Athenian
connection must not be forgotten either. For it represents man
trying to come to grips with the world --- both the terrestrial and
the human --- made by that divine Creator.

Ranking among the foremost of ancient
Greek thinkers was the Athenian Socrates. It must be remembered that
the thought of Socrates rested outside the accepted canons of
orthodox Christianity.

For example, Socrates believed that man
existed prior to his earthly incarnation. However, the idea
professed by Socrates that absolute morality exists apart from human
culture and convention has a great deal of truth about it.

Like the current era, those living in
Athens during the time of Socrates found their culture awash in the
chaos of moral relativism. This situation arose in part as a result
of Sophist teaching.

The Sophists were a group of traveling
teachers who would share their insights with those willing to pay,
namely the well-to-do of the Athenian aristocracy. The Sophist
worldview was epitomized by the following aphorism attributed to
Protagoras, pivotal member of the movement: “Man is the measure of
all things.” This meant that man had to rely on his own experience
with the highest arbiter of conduct being the collective conventions
of any given reality and objective morality nonexistent.

Protagoras was not willing to live out
the implications of his own ethical theorizing as he maintained that
individuals ought to follow the practices of their own particular
culture in order to guarantee social stability. The doctrines
promulgated by other Sophists were just as dangerously inconsistent.

Gorgias said truth did not exist nor
could it be communicated. Apparently with the exception of this
truth of course. Thrasymachus believed might did indeed make right.

It was in such an atmosphere that
Socrates undertook his relentless pursuit of the truth in order that
he might live what he termed “the good life”, defined as living
in such a way as to maximize virtue. He attempted to discover what
constituted this morality by subjecting the truth claims propagated
within his culture to careful scrutiny and reflection.

To Socrates, the knowledge of morality
and truth were not merely intellectual commodities to be touted out
to score points in public debates or used to pass the next philosophy
exam. Similar to the Christian view of truth, knowledge of the
ethical was to serve as the basis of action.

It was this conception of truth that
Socrates sought after despite the hardships it eventually brought
him. The events leading to the trial of Socrates occurred
approximately 405 BC when Socrates as a member of the Committee of
500 refused to convict a number of generals accused of military
negligence. The thoughtful sage reflected that to try the military
leaders as a group violated the established judicial norms.

Throughout his trial for allegedly
corrupting the Athenian youth, Socrates was confronted with several
occasions where he could have escaped from authorities or played on
their sympathies in order to spare his life. But instead Socrates
let the truth stand on its own and accepted whatever consequences the
defense of it brought.

Socrates' quest for morality and truth
is to be commended, especially in light of the cultural conditions in
which he found himself. However, the Christian must be careful when
employing this thinker as an historical example worthy of personal
emulation.

For starters, Socrates was only
partially correct when he argued that individuals do evil because
they do not know it is wrong. This might be true in some
circumstances like when one eats an extra cupcake thinking it will be
pure pleasure when in fact it ends up resulting in a stomachache.
However, such is not always the case.

I Timothy 2:14 says, “And Adam was
not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”
Adam, therefore, fell into sin knowing full well what he was doing
when he went against God's command not to eat the forbidden fruit.

Even though Socrates is to be commended
for searching for the truth in light of the spiritual darkness that
gripped Athens in the form of Sophist philosophy and pagan religion,
that search was only partial at best. For Jesus Christ is the way,
the truth and the life. If one's quest for truth is not to be washed
away like the house built on the sandy shore mentioned in Matthew 7,
it must ultimately be based upon Him.

Monday, January 11, 2016

A Virginia school system shut down
classes for a day over protests that erupted in response to a
Geography assignment that would have required students to write in
Arabic the fundamental Islamic statement of belief known as the
shahada.

If Jews or Muslims rebuffed an
assignment to write John 3:16 or “Jesus Is Lord”, would the
leftwing media formulate coverage of this story in such a manner so
as to paint those standing up for their First Amendment rights
against the state attempting to impose a particular religious
perspective as the villains?

Students are rarely taught English
penmanship these days.

So why is time being spent now in
regards to what amounts to a Third World language?

Before progressives look down their
haughty noses in condemnation at those seeming to oppose the
celebration of pluralism, perhaps they ought to realize to what it
was these parents were reacting.

In Islam, to be considered a Muslim,
the primary requirement is to recite with conviction the disputed
statement that the students would have been required to write.

That is, in essence, “There is no God
but Allah and Muhammad was his prophet.”

In the eyes of jihadists and allied
extremists, if students sign their names to such a statement, is that
considered a binding proclamation of conversion?

If so, should jihadists discover the
names of students having completed this assignment reverting back to
their Christian professions of faith and ways of life, what is to
prevent fatwas from being drawn up calling for the violent execution
of these unsuspecting pupils?

For the punishment regularly called
upon those those leaving Islam for another faith is often death.

The parents noticing this subtle
subversion of the public school system should not be looked down upon
as unsophisticated rubes or rednecks.

Instead, they ought to be commended for
exercising a degree of vigilance and discernment many in this day
have been conditioned to overlook for fear of the reprisals that
might be imposed for failing to surrender to the tyranny of political
correctness.

Monday, January 04, 2016

In
a commentary transcript, columnist Cal Thomas compared the rise of
Donald Trump with the rise of the Anti-Christ.

The
consideration of such is always good discernment on the part of an
Evangelical public intellectual when a political figure begins to
accumulate a devoted following..

However,
out of curiosity, did this commentator make an as bold a statement
regarding President Obama?

After
all, there was a point when church worship bands and elementary
school choruses alike were singing songs of praise in homage of the
forty-fourth president.

Thomas
observed that at one time a divorced man could not expect to be
elected President but that Evangelicals are now comfortable with a
candidate that has been married three times and can barely quote a
single Bible verse.

But
didn't Thomas himself help get this kind of ball rolling when he
co-authored “Blinded By Might”?

In
that work, Thomas advocated the thesis that Christians shouldn't
really get that involved in politics.

Instead,
believers ought to recognize a distinction between an individual's
personal sense of piety and their ability to govern effectively.

Interesting
how such a directive is rescinded as soon as average Christians are
considering a candidate that does not spew the social justice
platitudes infiltrating religious circles to an ever increasing
degree.

Sunday, January 03, 2016

Friday, January 01, 2016

In his oration at a
global forum on the environment, President Obama insisted that the
greatest threat to the climate is cynicism. Does he intend to curb
that emission as well?

As often as he is
absent from the airwaves and that the third hour of his program is a
rebroadcast of the first hour, on what grounds does Michael Savage
criticize those that take time off around Thanksgiving?

President Obama is
suggesting that the border between Syria and Turkey be sealed. If it
is acceptable to call for the sealing of that border, why not the one
between the United States and Mexico?

From the pulpit, a
minister poked fun of the elderly women at his former pastorate that
became noticeably upset at a young woman wearing a short skirt that
showed up to witness an infant dedication. But weren't those senior
saints merely reflecting how they had probably been instructed for
decades from the pulpit such as by that pastor's own documented
tirades opposing women wearing pants? Pants are usually more modest
that a skimpy skirt.

It was remarked from a
pulpit that acts of kindness that you do for family because the
person is related to you are not done from the standpoint of
Christian love. But so long as a deed is done for a person in a
spirit of magnanimity, is God going to be that picky about it?
What's the big deal if familial relationship is the primary
motivating factor? Doesn't God place most people in families for the
purposes of taking care of these particular individuals? Is it
really more pious to travel halfway around the globe to take care of
other elderly while your own are neglected?

It was said in a sermon
that we ought to let those with plagues such as leprosy touch us
because Jesus allowed a leper to touch Him. However, as the source
of healing, it was doubtful Jesus was going to contract the
debilitating illness. Furthermore, was not the Triune Godhead the
deity that implemented the regulations that, for lack of a better
term, stigmatized those with that particular affliction? As an
illustration, the pulpiteer mentioned the time that he was touched by
someone with a developmental disability. However, unlike ebola,
retardation is not communicable.

Regarding these
refugees that have sewn their mouths shut in protest until they are
granted entry into Europe, is socialized medicine also expected to
pick up the tab to surgically correct such deliberate acts of
self-mutilation?

At the Paris
environmental summit, Prince Charles panicked that the actions we
take now will determine the fate of the planet in terms of ecology.
But is he so troubled that he will surrender his fleet of luxury
automobiles and his mother her multiple palaces and as many corgis?
Or is deprivation and sacrifice something to be imposed upon the
classes of humanity from less polluted gene pools?

Obama panicked
regarding fish swimming in the streets of Miami. But isn't that the
occasional chance you take building a city essentially on a sandbar?

A headline regarding
the social services center shooting in California read “FBI Unable
To Determine If Terrorism Involved.” Will this determination
render the victims any more or less dead?

Regarding this proposed
“No Gun List” that would parallel the “No Fly List”. Will
those placed upon it forbidden from purchasing firearms also be
forbidden from knowing why they have been placed on it? Terrorists
and extremists also make extensive use of social media and related
messaging technologies. If Obama gets to take away your right to
bear arms without the due process inherent to these kinds of lists,
what is to prevent the government from summarily denying you access
to the Internet?

Jim Bakker is blaming
his fall into sin on witches conspiring against him. I guess the
encounter with Jessica Hahn was merely a physically rigorous exorcism
and the laying on of hands.

The song connected with
Christmas “Let There Be Peace On Earth & Let It Begin With Me”
might be a noble aspiration. However, the terrorist assault on San
Bernadino proves how lyrically vapid the tune is so long as there are
at least two that disagree with the sentiment.

On WMAL's “Mornings
On The Mall”, host Larry O'Connor referenced Donald Trump's
interview with Alex Jones but would not bring himself to enunciate
the name “Alex Jones” because O'Connor does not support the
so-called conspiracy theories emphasized by Alex Jones. So does
Larry O'Connor disrespect in the same manner every other media
personality or public figure with whom he happens to disagree?

How long until a No
Vehicular Travel List is promulgated from the names on the No Fly
List denying these persons access to the nation's roadways through
electronic license plate readers and facial recognition technology?
How long until there is a No Food List promulgated from the names on
the No Fly List to deny sustaining nutrition to those not in
compliance with administration objectives and agendas? What we are
seeing is he who wishes he was the Beast laying the conceptual
foundations for the actual Beast.

A Maryland commission
on firearms suggested that guns should be removed from the homes of
those accused of making a “substantial threat”. Most would
assume that would consist of saying things like “I plan to shoot
Such and Such” or “I'll beat the digestive effluent out of So and
So if they do this or that.” However, it seems that educators and
social workers (not simply law enforcement) will play a role in
determining what constitutes a substantial threat. As a result of
the leftwing women and the other assorted feminized types that
dominate these respective professions, the threshold of what
constitutes a threat of violence will likely be lowered considerably.
To this class of social engineers, a threat of violence can consist
of little more than publicly suggesting that specified protected
minorities should not be lavished with so many handouts and set
asides. In those of such diminished rationality, a threat can
consist of nothing more than a man raising his voice at a woman in a
scathing exchange actually instigated by the woman.

An interfaith forum was
held in Northern Virgina for the purposes of preventing hate crimes
against Muslims and Sikhs. Maybe the Sikhs get a bad deal at times.
But interesting how such forums don't really give a flip about crimes
committed against Jews and especially Christians.

President Obama and
Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton urge a strategy of engagement
with ISIS counseling that America offend the terrorist organization
as least as possible. As such, will they condemn scantily clad women
in the media and reverse their approval of gay marriage?

President Obama, how is
altering the mission of NASA from that of exploring space to being an
outreach effort to Muslims working for the country?

Shouldn't Obama's
propagandists like Josh Earnest (whose name is a synonym for
“Confirmed Liar”) be the last to say a candidate ought to be
disqualified from office for undermining the Constitution?

The Countryside Voice,
a publication part of the Campaign To Protect Rural England, lamented
on the cover of its winter 2015 issue, “Why rural poverty is going
unacknowledged”. Probably because that's not where the deadbeats
live that murder British soldiers along the side of the road and then
post agitprop videos still drenched in blood.

The December 2012 issue
of Monitor On Psychology was about preventing obesity. The masthead
cartoon featured two witches standing outside a gingerbread house.
One turns to the other and remarks of the two portly youths
meandering by, “Remember when we use to have to fatten the kids up
first?” As in regards to the November 2012 cartoon that mocked
America's Pilgrim Forefathers in favor of the Native Indians, this
one also raised a number of issues. Will the magazine run a cartoon
from the perspective of the children about witchcraft no longer being
a deviant spirituality where its practitioners were once driven out
of respectable society? Secondly, if witches luring children in with
candy to be cannibalized in a laughing matter, will the magazine also
run cartoons soon poking fun of child molesters luring children into
vans?In a criticism of what
he categorized as a narcissistic variety of esigesis, Lutheran
theologian Chris Roseborough spoofed pastors that gleaned Old
Testament narratives for illustrations or metaphors to assist
believers through the challenges in their own lives. For example,
facing our own Goliaths. But unless such passages are presented in
such a light, are they really all that pertinent to the life of the
individual? Ancient Semitic battle narratives don't really float
most people's boats to any significant extent.

Pastor Jason Cooley
insisted that Baptists should avoid Christmas because it is “Rome's
holiday”, meaning the Roman Catholic Church. Does that mean
Baptists should also avoid the Catholic Church's savior as well? For
despite that denomination's shortcomings, they still advocate a
Trinitarian Christology.

In his condemnation of
Christmas, Pastor Cooley observed if the holiday is really about
Christ, don't spend any money and see what happens. He suggested
that children raised on Christmas would break down crying. In other
words, the scene wouldn't be too much different than the way pastors
claiming that they aren't in it for the money and that insist God
always provides toss a fit when the offering is down.

Hillary Clinton
proclaimed that “mass shooting” is a term that we should not have
to teach the meaning of to our children. Does she intend to be as
forcefully principled regarding the carnal debauchery sweeping over
society such as gay marriage?

Jeb Bush quipped does
Donald Trump get his foreign policy advice from the Saturday or
Sunday shows? However, one of the most informative geopolitcal
primers I ever saw was the G.I. Joe cartoon from the 1980's.